NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
@Kwark Top men Kwark, TOP. For real though how tf did this guy get the documents out and how did he have the clearance to see such documents. Also Why didn't AG Garland thank the wa-po and the guardian for finding the dude for him. Somethings not right about this whole story.
On April 14 2023 04:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: There are two agreements.
1 billion for sending shells from storage. This has passed. 1 billion for buying shells. Opposed by France and Greece currently because it would allow buying shells from outside the EU. Probably because Turkey and France produce shells. Also other versions of the purchase bill discussed but opposed by other countries. It is always a bit complicated when it comes down to a shitton of money.
35mm ammo for the Gepard AA tank has to be purchased in Switzerland, it's the only producer and Germany doesn't have any left AFAIK. It was already complicated because Switzerland had to disregard a law that forbids them from allowing their military gear to be sent to an active conflict.
It's a defensive weapon system and drone killer, Ukraine needs this. Another dickmove by Macron, he made some weird decisions lately against overall European interest.
Gepard ammo is produced in Germany by Rheinmetall, as announced in February.
Basically, any military age male in Russia can now be drafted without even knowing it. There's no way for them to leave the country to escape their fate either...
On April 14 2023 04:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: There are two agreements.
1 billion for sending shells from storage. This has passed. 1 billion for buying shells. Opposed by France and Greece currently because it would allow buying shells from outside the EU. Probably because Turkey and France produce shells. Also other versions of the purchase bill discussed but opposed by other countries. It is always a bit complicated when it comes down to a shitton of money.
35mm ammo for the Gepard AA tank has to be purchased in Switzerland, it's the only producer and Germany doesn't have any left AFAIK. It was already complicated because Switzerland had to disregard a law that forbids them from allowing their military gear to be sent to an active conflict.
It's a defensive weapon system and drone killer, Ukraine needs this. Another dickmove by Macron, he made some weird decisions lately against overall European interest.
Gepard ammo is produced in Germany by Rheinmetall, as announced in February.
It seems people are jumping to conclusions way too quickly. Everyone is like "OMG! NATO operators in Ukraine?!" like it's something unexpected. Of course there will be NATO operators there, but not on the front lines like everyone assumes. There are embassies and VIPs to protect, advisors and coordinators for all the NATO equipment that's coming in etc.
and just news looking for sensational titles for clicks.
We have the same in the Netherlands here where some people are now making a ruckus over there supposedly a single Dutch special forces soldier active in Ukraine. Like he's going Rambo behind enemy lines or something and not just there as an advisor or facilitator.
Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
I think it's far from a given that a handful of US soldiers killed by Russia would mean immediate WW3, but I don't believe it can be dismissed as not a potential escalatory incident either.
When's the last time a US soldier in an ostensibly non-combat role was killed in hostilities by a nuclear power? I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion that it's a relatively frequent occurrence.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
That's the catch, isn't it. They aren't going to tell us they are until/unless they get caught. Them (the US especially) not running similar black ops would be an anomaly though.
That said, being in Kyiv reduces but doesn't eliminate entirely the potential for US soldiers to be killed by Russian hostilities.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
I think it's far from a given that a handful of US soldiers killed by Russia would mean immediate WW3, but I don't believe it can be dismissed as not a potential escalatory incident either.
When's the last time a US soldier in an ostensibly non-combat role was killed in hostilities by a nuclear power? I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion that it's a relatively frequent occurrence.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
That's the catch, isn't it. They aren't going to tell us they are until/unless they get caught. Them (the US especially) not running similar black ops would be an anomaly though.
That said, being in Kyiv reduces but doesn't eliminate entirely the potential for US soldiers to be killed by Russian hostilities.
Specifically US soldiers isn’t what I said. I said great powers. India and China do it all the time.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
I think it's far from a given that a handful of US soldiers killed by Russia would mean immediate WW3, but I don't believe it can be dismissed as not a potential escalatory incident either.
When's the last time a US soldier in an ostensibly non-combat role was killed in hostilities by a nuclear power? I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion that it's a relatively frequent occurrence.
On April 15 2023 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
That's the catch, isn't it. They aren't going to tell us they are until/unless they get caught. Them (the US especially) not running similar black ops would be an anomaly though.
That said, being in Kyiv reduces but doesn't eliminate entirely the potential for US soldiers to be killed by Russian hostilities.
Specifically US soldiers isn’t what I said. I said great powers. India and China do it all the time.
It does seem like exactly the kind of thing the US would freak out about, though, even if other powers wouldn’t, right? Not guaranteed they (we) would, and maybe more unlikely for the fact that for once, the right-wing radicals are more dovish in this conflict. Under other circumstances it’s easy for me to imagine Fox running wall-to-wall coverage of a single black ops dude getting killed and plastering his yearbook photos everywhere trying to gin up support for a hot war. As it is, it’s more likely they’d do it advocating for cutting military aid to Ukraine.
But in general the US has a pretty long history of looking at millions of foreign deaths and saying “that’s a shame” and then one good old boy from Georgia dies and it’s an outrage that must be avenged. Don’t you think it’s unwise to extrapolate US behavior from how China and India handle border skirmishes?
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
I think it's far from a given that a handful of US soldiers killed by Russia would mean immediate WW3, but I don't believe it can be dismissed as not a potential escalatory incident either.
When's the last time a US soldier in an ostensibly non-combat role was killed in hostilities by a nuclear power? I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion that it's a relatively frequent occurrence.
On April 15 2023 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
That's the catch, isn't it. They aren't going to tell us they are until/unless they get caught. Them (the US especially) not running similar black ops would be an anomaly though.
That said, being in Kyiv reduces but doesn't eliminate entirely the potential for US soldiers to be killed by Russian hostilities.
Specifically US soldiers isn’t what I said. I said great powers. India and China do it all the time.
Ah, I thought that might be what you meant. I'm sure there's lots of things India and China do all the time that doesn't work for/apply to the US's military and foreign policy (in this situation and others) for a variety of reasons. Persistently fighting with sticks is one that jumps to mind.
I think your observation supports the idea that China or India losing some troops in border disputes won't make them go nuclear, it does little if anything to support the notion that Russia killing US soldiers in Ukraine wouldn't present escalatory risks.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
I think it's far from a given that a handful of US soldiers killed by Russia would mean immediate WW3, but I don't believe it can be dismissed as not a potential escalatory incident either.
When's the last time a US soldier in an ostensibly non-combat role was killed in hostilities by a nuclear power? I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion that it's a relatively frequent occurrence.
On April 15 2023 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
That's the catch, isn't it. They aren't going to tell us they are until/unless they get caught. Them (the US especially) not running similar black ops would be an anomaly though.
That said, being in Kyiv reduces but doesn't eliminate entirely the potential for US soldiers to be killed by Russian hostilities.
Specifically US soldiers isn’t what I said. I said great powers. India and China do it all the time.
But in general the US has a pretty long history of looking at millions of foreign deaths and saying “that’s a shame” and then one good old boy from Georgia dies and it’s an outrage that must be avenged. Don’t you think it’s unwise to extrapolate US behavior from how China and India handle border skirmishes?
Ah well that's why you only send soldiers with foreign, preferably Muslim, sounding names. Then no one gives a crap.
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
Nah, great powers kill each other’s troops relatively frequently. Nobody starts WW3 over a private.
I think it's far from a given that a handful of US soldiers killed by Russia would mean immediate WW3, but I don't believe it can be dismissed as not a potential escalatory incident either.
When's the last time a US soldier in an ostensibly non-combat role was killed in hostilities by a nuclear power? I'm a bit skeptical of your assertion that it's a relatively frequent occurrence.
On April 15 2023 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
On April 15 2023 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Having troops in Ukraine does present a risk that they could be killed without being the target of an attack (whether they were the target, would undoubtedly be in contention). That obviously carries its own potentially catastrophic escalatory risks that can be avoided when they aren't in Ukraine.
Having a remix of Tongo Tongo in Ukraine could have far greater consequences.
I think that everyone who went there and people who sent them are well aware of potential risks. Besides, I think they're all in Kyiv or other places away from the front, not running active missions near the hotzones. Remember that during the Tongo Tongo incident the US forces there were actually on a seek & destroy mission and got ambushed. As long as NATO members inside Ukraine aren't running similar black ops there shouldn't be any problems with escalation.
That's the catch, isn't it. They aren't going to tell us they are until/unless they get caught. Them (the US especially) not running similar black ops would be an anomaly though.
That said, being in Kyiv reduces but doesn't eliminate entirely the potential for US soldiers to be killed by Russian hostilities.
Specifically US soldiers isn’t what I said. I said great powers. India and China do it all the time.
It does seem like exactly the kind of thing the US would freak out about, though, even if other powers wouldn’t, right? Not guaranteed they (we) would, and maybe more unlikely for the fact that for once, the right-wing radicals are more dovish in this conflict. Under other circumstances it’s easy for me to imagine Fox running wall-to-wall coverage of a single black ops dude getting killed and plastering his yearbook photos everywhere trying to gin up support for a hot war. As it is, it’s more likely they’d do it advocating for cutting military aid to Ukraine.
But in general the US has a pretty long history of looking at millions of foreign deaths and saying “that’s a shame” and then one good old boy from Georgia dies and it’s an outrage that must be avenged. Don’t you think it’s unwise to extrapolate US behavior from how China and India handle border skirmishes?
To that point, the US is still exploiting Pat Tillman for recruitment. The perversity of which can't be overstated.
There have been numerous visits to Ukraine by high ranking US officials and even European state leaders, and every time the risk of them dying in an air strike was infinitesimal but non-zero. Suggesting that having a few dozen NATO operators there away from the frontlines is any riskier doesn't compute.
EPT
